Last Sundays handgunworld podcast had a very informative and interesting conversation about the differences between todays training of civilians, military and police.
I thought it quite an eye opener.
The goals are very different, as is the actual training procedures.
Oddly, they said that civilian training involves much more actual live firing.
Check it out:
handgunworld.com, podcast episode 217.

Your training in the military has a lot to do with your "MOS" job in the military and also the mission you are preparing to deploy into. There is a lot of mission specific training we go through prior to a deployment. A supply SGT or cook is not going to get the same training as an infantry soldier or MP and they are not going to get the same training as a Ranger, Seal or Green barrett.

Your training in the military has a lot to do with your "MOS" job in the military

Not in all units, depending on the commander. When I was a company commander or OIC of a unit everyone got the same training.

It was my company so I could allocate my training time to suit me, and I was an expert of selling budgets, including getting ammo.

For example, I had clerks to recon. I extended the training beyond the 300 yard pop up, we also had rifle training of KD ranges and maneuver courses.

Did the same thing with pistols.

The only exception was if one showed interest in competitive shooting. I was also the OIC of the State Marksmanship unit. These individuals got further coaching and training with the understanding they provided training to their units or sections.

Yes its different then LE and Civilian. I am a cert. LE Sniper Instructor and did sniper training for the military. A clear example is in LE you teach head shots, in Military, you teach COM. Also the range (distance) is different.

Civilian pistol/revolver shooting isn't that much different then military and LE pistol/revolver training. Defensive pistol is about bad breath distance. 3 yards is 3 yards whether you are a civilian, LE or Military.

During the podcast, it was pointed out that military training doesn't necessarily include much in the way of handgun training.
The fellow talking was in the Marines, so maybe other branches do include it.
He also said that the emphasis is on precision rifle over long distances.
Very useful in some places, but the lack of training in close, fast rifle training was harmful in others.
He also said that competition shooters, who excel in handguns and fast rifle use, are increasingly being asked to train military.
It was a very interesting discussion.

During the podcast, it was pointed out that military training doesn't necessarily include much in the way of handgun training.
The fellow talking was in the Marines, so maybe other branches do include it.
He also said that the emphasis is on precision rifle over long distances.
Very useful in some places, but the lack of training in close, fast rifle training was harmful in others.
He also said that competition shooters, who excel in handguns and fast rifle use, are increasingly being asked to train military.
It was a very interesting discussion.

I am an MP so we do have extensive M9 pistol training as well as M16/M4 W/WO M203 grenade launcher, M249 SAW M240B SAW, M2 50 cal AND MK19 automatic 40mm grenade launcher. Many MOSs aren't even issued M9s so they don't get much training on them. Ben did touch on that in the podcast.

Prior to our last deployment we had specialized close combat training. This training was conducted by civilian contractors who all 4 were former military and 2 of them also worked in civilian law enforcement.

As an MP we train in teams for combat deployments but also train individual for stateside L&O deployments.

I think one thing Ben missed is that a lot of military service members are also civilians (reserve and guard) and shoot/train a lot in their civilian free time.

As I said in my earlier post a lot in the military depends on your unit, MOS and mission specific training.

Last Sundays handgunworld podcast had a very informative and interesting conversation about the differences between todays training of civilians, military and police.

Police are civilians. Just saying.

Yeah. It's no secret that a lot of civilians, if they seek it. Will have better training than any military or law enforcement.

However, I still firmly believe that real life experience triumphs any training. Also if the training prior to the real life experience is sufficient or more so than another is hard to tell. Everyone is still different and reacts differently under stress.

my military experience was over 20 years ago, but the 1911A1s in the ship's armory were used every year for "familiarization" and "qualification" on the flight deck. Neither was worth a hoot, and Boot Camp was spectacularly bad - 5 rounds from a Colt Ace 22lr, and no opportunity to see if you hit anything. We DID have 4 Ruger Service Six revolvers, and I bought some 38 Special ammo to shoot one on the regular qualification date, which irritated my Chief to no end. He also had no explanation why the guns were there....
My Dept gives better handgun instruction, but that's to be expected. What is also funny is even that is far less than I got on my own over the years.

The military teaches you to shoot, move and communicate as a member of a team, not as an individual. While civilian training teaches you to neutralize a threat on your own.

The military doesn't care so much about the individual rounds (which is why the "5.56 sucks" argument makes no sense), but rather about putting rounds down to allow your maneuver element freedom of maneuver. But civilian thinking is the exact opposite where "suppressive fire" will send you to jail.

So though the military's combat-arms training (don't get me started on cooks & aviators) will make you very proficient as an individual with weapons and able to safely handle weapons under stress, it's not going to make you a CQB commando, unless you're a actual commando (even Ranger School doesn't teach you how to use weapons in CQB, but rather it's a leadership school).

If you're looking to survive a civilian situation, I'd go for civilian training, even if you're military trained, as you're not out there learning how to draw and fire from concealment what not unless you're in some high-speed unit.

__________________
"Our contract called for 16 cases of rifles and ammunition for $10,000 dollars, not a machine gun...........That is our present to the General"-Pike Bishop

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Sorry, amigo, I never did get an answer - Ruger revolvers were never military issue that I know of, but we had four. No holsters, no speedloaders, not a single round of ammo - I had to buy my own AND get Gunner's permission to shoot it. It shot left, badly. But no, not one person could tell me why we had for Ruger revolvers in a US warships' armory. When the ship was decommissioned in 1994, I assume they went to the base armory, and probably disposed of from there who knows where, maybe gifted to Admirals and such.

The military teaches you to shoot, move and communicate as a member of a team, not as an individual. While civilian training teaches you to neutralize a threat on your own.

The military doesn't care so much about the individual rounds (which is why the "5.56 sucks" argument makes no sense), but rather about putting rounds down to allow your maneuver element freedom of maneuver. But civilian thinking is the exact opposite where "suppressive fire" will send you to jail.

I think that is spot on, Beretta.

Civilian training for the most part is geared towards being on your own, while military you are part of a team/squad.

Also, what some claim as "inferiority" of the 5.56/223 round on the civilian side is not so much a big deal with the Military because they are supplemented with 7.62NATO, 50BMG, Grenades, Grenade lauchers, and Full-auto capability.

Another I noticed on Military vs Civilian/Competion is the type of techniques used on rifles, mainly AR's/M4. Competition shooters always have the support hand farther out on the handguard, while Military/LE has your support arm closer to the magwell or gripping a VFG.

Look on the bright side, OEF-Vet, they only dinged you on spelling; only time I typed "Green Berets" on TFL, it was promptly pointed out that those are headgear, but the guys who wear them are SF.

(Of course, most civilians don't know that, so the shorthand of "Green Berets" is simpler.)

Meanwhile, with regard to training, I think it depends greatly on who the commanders are. In my experience, which was mostly big Navy but with the occasional JSOTF LNO gig, the typical Navy CO firmly believes that a sailor with a gun is more likely to hurt himself or his buddies than he is to hurt the enemy.

The JSOTF guys were much better, but in my experience, deployed training depended on individual initiative to a great extent, too. For instance, seeing that a class was going to be offered, finding out who was running it, and getting added in. Or, getting invited to go shoot with the security element when they did small arms or heavy weapons shoots.

Originally posted by g.willikers
During the podcast, it was pointed out that military training doesn't necessarily include much in the way of handgun training.
The fellow talking was in the Marines, so maybe other branches do include it.
He also said that the emphasis is on precision rifle over long distances.
Very useful in some places, but the lack of training in close, fast rifle training was harmful in others.

Handgun training is primarily for officers, platoon Sergeants, and squad leaders and from what I understand it is purely marksmanship oriented.

As far as an emphasis on precision rifle I have to disagree. Our annual rifle qualification has two tables, 1 & 2, the first being 200-500 yds from various positions. Table 2 is all done at 25 yds with an emphasis on speed and hitting vital areas, center mass, brain stem, pelvic girdle (theoretically a mobility kill).

Besides that there are tables 3 and 4 which don't count towards rifle score but are typically done at least once a year by combat units such as infantry and combat engineers. emphasize facing then firing, firing on the move, magazine changes, and engaging in low light with and without NV and lasers.

I also recently went through some training that involved clearing rooms, every Marine does so at least once at MCT, my unit refreshes on it regularly.

So the podcaster saying we mainly emphasize precision rifle is, IMO, flat out wrong or he could possibly have gotten out of the Corps before the other tables were added to the training regimin.

Handgun training is primarily for officers, platoon Sergeants, and squad leaders and from what I understand it is purely marksmanship oriented.

In the military, a handgun is largely a status symbol of little practical utility on the battlefield (unless you're a in a high-speed unit). Usually it's carried as a primary arm by guys who never leave the FOB just so they have a weapon. I carried an M9 in Iraq as an Infantry PL on top of an M4, but always figured it was a weapon of last resort or my walking around the FOB weapon.

The Army's "pistol training" is a Death-By-PowerPoint Preliminary Marksmanship Instruction, then you're basically handed a weapon and expected to qualify with it without a Familiarization Fire (unless you're a new cherry 2LT, then you'll often be told to go to Range Control and ask for the M9 Zero Range..... ).

Quote:

Also, what some claim as "inferiority" of the 5.56/223 round on the civilian side is not so much a big deal with the Military because they are supplemented with 7.62NATO, 50BMG, Grenades, Grenade lauchers, and Full-auto capability.

Yup. Most people I hear bitching about the 5.56 or 9mm are arm-chair commandos who don't understand the trade-offs between carrying lots of ammo (5.56) vs. a heavy hitting round(7.62). As you said, there's certain situations where a more powerful round is needed (such as Afghanistan or as a DMR), but I'd take more ammo over more power most any day.

__________________
"Our contract called for 16 cases of rifles and ammunition for $10,000 dollars, not a machine gun...........That is our present to the General"-Pike Bishop

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

I would suggest LTC David Grossman's On Killing(2009) & his other book: On Combat.
He explains military structure, training, veteran issues, and the dynamics of the act of killing.
David Grossman retired from the US armed forces & started as a lower enlisted soldier. He also was jump & Ranger qualified.
His points about "personal kills" & how only approx 2% of all active duty troops can kill w/o remorse or be damaged by the combat is worth the read.
LTC Grossman also explains the fact that US Army doctrine/training does not want combat soldiers to kill, but to wound the enemy. This plan(in theory) will cause the enemy to direct troops to aid the wounded/lower morale.
Many people in the general public & some active duty soldiers(in all fields) do not clearly understand that point.

The end goal of the military is NOT to kill but to carry out missions or reach goals. Death is not always required or mandated.

Clyde
PS: He also writes in On Killing that approx 50,000 rounds were expended for EKIA(enemy killed) in the entire SE Asia conflict

The end goal of the military is NOT to kill but to carry out missions or reach goals. Death is not always required or mandated.

Exactly

Quote:

PS: He also writes in On Killing that approx 50,000 rounds were expended for EKIA(enemy killed) in the entire SE Asia conflict

I agree with that factually, but as kraigwy pointed out, it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

I'd venture to say that the rounds-to-boudy-count ratio is even higher in OEF/OIF (or if you really want an interesting figure, I'd like to know how much $$$ per kill we spent).

But often times it doesn't matter if you kill or wound the bad guy. If you're on a convoy to deliver supplies to somewhere and some dusche-bag with an AK opens up on you and you return fire and expend 200 rounds suppressing him without killing him, it's still a success, as you accomplished your mission. Stoping everything you're doing just to go kill some bad-guys often times makes no sense in the broader scheme of things.

Too often folks get obsessed with body counts, as they look good on paper, but just killing people doesn't equal a strategic victory and in fact may be your undoing. But that's a whole other topic we can spend all weekend arguing about.

__________________
"Our contract called for 16 cases of rifles and ammunition for $10,000 dollars, not a machine gun...........That is our present to the General"-Pike Bishop

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

I agree with the forum members about the 50,000 round stat(which includes squad automatic weapons, aircraft systems, armor, etc). The book states that military snipers & sharpshooters had a EKIA rate of about 1.4 rounds per enemy dead.

Years ago, I saw & read how JFK's SECDEF; Robert Macnamera(check spelling) was angry over US armed forces in SE Asia not "killing enough" NVA & Viet Kong. He was a business exec for Ford & thought you could apply logistics(weapons troops ammunition) and expect results. Real combat(killing & dying) is not a business model. It's bloody, dangerous & stressful.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.